I see… well, I believe the only way around the clearly absurd conclusion is by invoking an atemporal entity to resolve such conflict (as many already have, I believe). Not in the sense that an atemporal being acted temporally in creating time (such as, there is no time, and then there is time. For that would very obviously fall into the regress that you described), but rather, that an atemporal being eternally willed for temporality (as any being outside of time would, if will something, will eternally). That is not to say that time is eternal (in the sense that time stretches back infinitely without beginning), but rather, that the framework of our temporal universe is eternal (in the same way that a chest may be of one nature - perhaps hard - whilst its contents be of another - perhaps soft - without conflict). By that, it seems to me that it can explain a seeming beginning of time within the framework, whilst the framework itself never needs to fall necessarily into the same nature.
That be so, time itself didn’t come into existence, really, but it was always in existence, because an atemporal being willed it eternally into existence. Simply on the basis of its eternity, however, does not exonerate it of a contingent nature. For if it is eternally existent due not to itself but by a non-temporal being, then it is eternally dependent on the non-temporal being (the same way that the fire of a camp is always dependent on the wood that fuels it inspite of their equal length in “hot” existence. It would be fallacious to deduce that on equality of a given type (timely) there need not be a nature of dependence in their relationship).
